lukwiya v attorney general of the republic of uganda and another 2018 eacj 126 27 november 2018

lukwiya v attorney general of the republic of uganda and another 2018 eacj 126 27 november 2018

The Reference was dismissed as time-barred because it was filed outside the two-month period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty, and the Court has no power to disregard this limitation even in cases of alleged continuing violations.

Citation
lukwiya v attorney general of the republic of uganda and another 2018 eacj 126 27 november 2018
Parties
Applicant: Malcom Lukwiya; 1st Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda; 2nd Respondent: Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya
Court
EACJ
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Reference / Judgment
Outcome
Reference dismissed as time-barred
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Regional Courts, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Time Barred Claims, Interpretation of Treaty Provisions, Human Rights Violations, Extra Judicial Rendition
Source Language
English
International Law Human Rights Law Regional Integration Law Jurisdiction of Regional Courts Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Time Barred Claims Interpretation of Treaty Provisions Human Rights Violations +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcom Lukwiya

Applicant

Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

1st Respondent

Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction before exhaustion of municipal remedies
  2. 2 Whether the arrest and detention of the Applicant was justified, legal and regular under Kenyan and Ugandan law and/or the fundamental principles of the EAC Treaty
  3. 3 Whether the act of arresting and moving the Applicant across borders amounted to extra-judicial rendition

Ratio Decidendi

The Reference was dismissed as time-barred because it was filed outside the two-month period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty, and the Court has no power to disregard this limitation even in cases of alleged continuing violations.

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed as time-barred

Orders

  • Each party to bear its own costs